The
domain names at issue are <navistardefense.technology> and <navistardefense.systems>,
registered with Godaddy LLC.

PANEL

The
undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially
and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as
Panelist in this proceeding.

Eleni
Lappa as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL
HISTORY

Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically
on May 21, 2015; the Forum received
payment on May 21, 2015.

On
May 22, 2015, Godaddy LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <navistardefense.technology> and
<navistardefense.systems> domain names are registered with Godaddy
LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Godaddy LLC has
verified that Respondent is bound by the Godaddy LLC registration agreement and
has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in
accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).

On
May 27, 2015, the Forum served the
Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting
a deadline of June 16, 2015 by which Respondent could file a Response to the
Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s
registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@navistardefense.technology
and postmaster@navistardefense.systems. Also on May 27, 2015, the Written
Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served
and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and
fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as
technical, administrative and billing contacts.

A
timely Response was received and determined to be complete on May 27, 2015.

On
June 3, 2015, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by
a single-member Panel, the Forum
appointed Eleni Lappa as Panelist.

Having
reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the
"Panel") finds that the Forum
has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform
Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ
reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to
Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as
defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2.

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant
requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent
to Complainant.

PARTIES'
CONTENTIONS

A.
Complainant

Complainant,
in connection with its business in developing military vehicles, owns the
NAVISTAR mark through its registrations with the United States Patent and
Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,476,173, registered Feb. 9,
1988), and through various trademark registrations throughout the world and has
thereby established its Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) rights. Complainant asserts that Respondent’s
<navistardefense.technology> and <navistardefense.systems>
domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s NAVISTAR mark as they
incorporate the above mark entirely and add the descriptive term “defense” as
well as the “.technology” or “.systems” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”)
suffixes.

Complainant further submits that Respondent has no
rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names and has not
established that he is or has ever been commonly known by the disputed domain
names. Complainant also points out that they have not authorized Respondent to
incorporate the NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration and that Respondent
has failed to make an active use of the <navistardefense.technology>
and <navistardefense.systems> domain names, and has offered them
for sale to Complainant in excess of out-of-pocket costs, which demonstrates
neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use.

More specifically, Complainant submits that Respondent has attempted to
sell the disputed domain names for twenty-times the amount of the cost to
register the names, as per the evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(i) from which derives
the principle of bad faith registration. Moreover Complainant claims Respondent
is a serial cybersquatter who, along with registering the two disputed domain
names in the current case, has also registered other infringing domain names in
a past UDRP case, demonstrating bad faith as per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). Further,
Complainant submits that Respondent’s inactive holding of both <navistardefense.technology> and <navistardefense.systems>
domain names provides further indication of non-exclusive bad faith as per
Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Finally, Complainant asserts that Respondent registered
the disputed domain names with actual and/or constructive knowledge of the
NAVISTAR mark and Complainant’s rights in the mark, as shown by Respondent’s
correspondence with Complainant.

B.
Respondent

Respondent
disputes Complainant’s rights in the NAVISTAR mark as “there [is] at least one
more registrant for ‘NAVISTAR’ mark.” Additionally, Respondent argues that
there are no trademark registrations for the NAVISTARDEFENSE mark, the NAVISTAR
DEFENSE mark, or the NAVISTARDEFENSE.COM mark. Finally, Respondent denies
infringing upon any rights which fall under the purview of the Policy.

FINDINGS

Complainant
is a company which, in connection with its business in developing military
vehicles, owns the NAVISTAR mark in various registrations throughout the world,
including among else its registration with the United States Patent and
Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,476,173, registered Feb. 9,
1988) and has thereby established its Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) rights. Respondent
registered two domain names i.e. <navistardefense.technology> and <navistardefense.systems> both
of which incorporate the NAVISTAR mark entirely with the addition of the term “defense”
as well as the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) suffixes “.technology” and “.systems”
respectively.

Respondent has not submitted any proof that it has any rights
or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names and has not established
that he is or has ever been commonly known by the disputed domain names. It is
also evident that Respondent does not operate under any authorization or license
by Complainant to incorporate the NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration.
A review of the relevant domain name addresses reveals that Respondent has
never made any active use of the <navistardefense.systems> and <navistardefense.technology>
domain names. Moreover, Respondent has registered the disputed domain names on
March 6 and 10, 2015, respectively, and notified Complainant about the
registrations on April 10, 2015, and finally on May 11, 2015 offered the
disputed domain names for sale to Complainant, for a price in excess of
out-of-pocket costs. Based on submitted evidence Respondent appears to have been involved in a
past UDRP case [See Lockheed Martin Corporation v. N Rahmany et al., FA
1612646 (Nat. Arb. Forum April 17, 2015) (suspending
<lockheedmartin.services> and <lockheedmartin.systems> domain names
registered by N Rahmany)] where he was found to be in bad faith as per Policy ¶
4(b)(ii).

DISCUSSION

Paragraph
15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the
basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy,
these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

Paragraph
4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following
three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or
transferred:

(1)the
domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a
trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(2)Respondent
has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3)the domain
name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Identical
and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant
has established in full, pursuant to evidence submitted, its rights under Policy
¶ 4(a)(i). Respondent’s <navistardefense.technology> and <navistardefense.systems>
domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s NAVISTAR mark as they
incorporate the mark entirely and merely add the descriptive term “defense” as
well as the “.technology” or “.systems” gTLD suffixes. Complainant has provided
evidence that the term “defense” relates to its NAVISTAR mark and therefore the
disputed domain names create an association with the NAVISTAR mark that likely
causes confusion. It is established case law that wherever a term descriptive
of a complainant’s business is added to a fully incorporated mark along with a
gTLD, a finding of confusing similarity follows under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Kohler
Co. v. Curley, FA 890812 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2007); see also
Isleworth Land Co. v. Lost in Space, SA, FA 117330 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept.
27, 2002). In light of the above, Respondent’s <navistardefense.technology> and <navistardefense.systems> domain names are clearly confusingly
similar to Complainant’s NAVISTAR mark as per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

Rights or
Legitimate Interests

Complainant
has made a prima facie case, as per Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), by submitting a
listing of its trademarks and registrations throughout the world, that Respondent
lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. As such,
the burden has shifted to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate
interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA
741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA
780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006).

Respondent has failed to submit any evidence that it has
any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, since he has
not established that he is owner of any relevant registered rights or that he has
ever been commonly known by the disputed domain names. Moreover, Complainant (as
the relevant trademark owner) has never authorized Respondent to incorporate
the NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration. Pursuant to the available
evidence on the record, as well as the fact that Respondent has not defended himself
with regards to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), Respondent cannot establish himself as commonly
known by the <navistardefense.technology> and <navistardefense.systems>
domain names. SeeIndyMac
Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback,
FA 830934 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 7, 2006)].

Further,
Respondent has no claim of use-based rights on the disputed domain names
as he has failed to make any active use of the <navistardefense.technology>
and <navistardefense.systems> domain names, and has only offered
them for sale to Complainant for a price in excess of out-of-pocket costs,
which demonstrates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services,
nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. The disputed domain names appear
to be parked pages, illustrating a clear lack of commercial use on behalf of
the registrant. See Thermo
Electron Corp. v. Xu,
FA 713851 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 12, 2006); see also Baylor Univ. v. Red Hot
Web Gems, Inc., FA 1082178 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 3, 2007). Therefore, Respondent
has failed to prove any active use of the disputed domain names and as such has
failed to substantiate either a bona fide offering of goods or services
as per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use as per Policy
¶ 4(c)(iii).

Respondent’s
offer to sell the disputed domain names to the trademark owner for a price of $495
per domain name,
in excess of the applicable official fee of $24.99 per domain name, evidences
no rights or legitimate interests. See
Reese v. Morgan,
FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007). Accordingly, Respondent has no rights
and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

Registration
and Use in Bad Faith

As
mentioned above Respondent has no legitimate rights or interests to the
disputed domain names linked to his opting to register them. The fact that Respondent
has contacted Complainant shortly after the registrations and attempted to sell
the disputed domain names for twenty-times the amount of the cost to register
the names, indicates that the registrations were made for that purpose and as
such is evidence of bad faith registration as per Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Am.
Online, Inc. v. Prijic, FA 112639. Therefore, Respondent has clearly sought
compensation for the <navistardefense.technology> and <navistardefense.systems>
domain names in excess of out-of-pocket costs, illustrating bad faith under
Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).

Finally, it
is evident that Respondent’s purpose of registering the disputed domain names
was to offer them for sale to Complainant,
and as such the registrations were made and used in bad faith, as per Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). Respondent’s actual
knowledge of Complainant and its rights derives from Respondent’s promptness in
corresponding with Complainant, soon after the registration of the disputed
domain names, and this clearly leads to the conclusion that Respondent
registered the <navistardefense.technology> and <navistardefense.systems>
domain names
in bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Immigration Equality v. Brent,
FA 1103571 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 11, 2008).

DECISION

Having
established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel
concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

Accordingly,
it is Ordered that the <navistardefense.technology> and <navistardefense.systems>
domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.